When did it start to matter what a team's talent level is in regards to wins & losses? It's not enough to have opinion determine the value of teams that don't play each other.

It doesn't and I never said it should. What I'm pointing out, is that it probably should have some effect on how a team like Nevada got to 10-1, and understand that Boise losing to a 10-1 Nevada team isn't the same as Boise losing to a 10-1 Wisconsin, Stanford, Ohio State, etc. Nevada is a completely different kind of 10-1. Human voters do have the ability to let things like that effect the way they vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMT

Now you want opinion to have weight in actual results?

Don't human polls make up 2/3 of the BCS formula? Aren't those human polls almost 100% opinion based?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMT

You're dead wrong. There is a conspiracy. The BCS (which is designed to limit competition and fix prices ie a cartel) and their AQ's have enormous financial incentive to keep the party in-house. They hold "non-profit" status for bowls which are decidedly for profit. They charge the people they claim to be protecting...the students...full ticket price to provide free entertainment at bowl games where unsold seats mean tix can be had for 10% of face value. They get money from state budgets that are long past milked dry. The lists of financial double deals and shadiness go on and on. It's driven by greed, as all good conspiracies are. And if making sure the Boise's and TCU's of the world can't crash the party will protect their ill-gotten gains, you better believe they don't think twice.

You speak so adamantly and convincingly of the BCS being a money driven conspiracy that's out to keep the little guy down so the big boys can make money. Now, is it possible? Sure. College athletics has proven to be extremely corrupt over the years. Now, what I want to know, do you speak so confidently about this because you've actually done research, talked to people "in the know" and have firsthand knowledge that the BCS is just one big fraud? Or do you speak so passionately about this because it's a stance you took long ago, with little to no real knowledge, decided some stuff you read online must be true, and are now out to make sure anyone that disagrees with you understands you're right, and we're wrong?

You're responding to people who think the idea of 8 conference winners in a playoff is unfair, because it leaves out good teams who have a bad day. That doesn't apply, of course, to Boise.

No, your idea of a playoff would leave teams like Stanford, Ohio State, Arkansas, Michigan State, and LSU out, so UConn/Pitt/WVU, and Florida St/VT could get in. I think this year, Boise is still a top 8 team, regardless of one slip up against Nevada. However, they play in a conference where they are challenged maybe 1 or 2 times a year, while teams like Auburn/LSU/Arkansas/Alabama/Miss. St take turns beating up on each other every week. Does it seem fair?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMT

But they do support an 8 team playoff...as long as the teams are hand-picked by a select group that stands to make the most money on the selections. Just don't call them a cartel.

I have never once said that. I think an 8 or 16 team playoff in college football makes the most sense, and I understand that if we ever got a deserving playoff, it would probably be a +1 or an eight team playoff. Make some more tweaks to the BCS formula, maybe make it more fair on the schools like Boise State TCU, etc., and take the top 8 teams in the final BCS poll, regardless of conference, and they get in the playoffs. This year, the Big East champion would have no place in a playoff. I know you say every conference champion should get it. Screw that. This isn't college basketball where Cinderella stories and upsets by a Big Sky team over an ACC team are much more likely. We usually get a great feel for who the top 8-12 teams in the country are by the end of the year in college football. If 6 of the top 8 reside in the SEC, Big 12, and Big 10, so be it. They get in the playoffs. There's not one perfect solution.

Now wait a minute. If you're going to trust the system you have to trust the system through and through. The BCS number next to a team is absolute.

So any team at any rank, it would follow, has to be there.

I'm against the BCS, but I'm much more against JMT's conspiracy theories and ridiculous ideas of what is 'fair'. He keeps on whining about how everything is unfair towards the little schools and yet when it's shown that it's not actually that way, then he justs conveniently ignores it or tries to twist it into something it's not.

I know that's more "speculation" but it helps my point. Nevada was ranked #19 because they got to 10-1 with a cupcake schedule. How do they do when they have one three game stretch where they play Alabama, Texas A&M? And Auburn along with another three game stretch where they play at South Carolina, at Mississippi State, and LSU?

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. There can't be any coulda shoulda woulda's like this in the BCS system because the computer rankings, as far as the system is concerned, are absolute.

I agree. They wouldn't do as well in the SEC, however they sat at 19 because the computers put them there so...

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. There can't be any coulda shoulda woulda's like this in the BCS system because the computer rankings, as far as the system is concerned, are absolute.

I agree. They wouldn't do as well in the SEC, however they sat at 19 because the computers put them there so...

I got ya. And yes, the computer rankings are about as absolute as we can get for something like this, but even they aren't perfect. Of course, there isn't any way to get a perfect rankings system for college football whose championship is decide by just one game, and not a series of games like every other professional and collegiate sport.

I used Arkansas' schedule, which IMO is pretty damn tough, but last I heard we only had the 6th toughest schedule in the nation this year. We managed to go 10-2 with that schedule. I don't know Boise's or TCU's SOS, but a team with a schedule that tough, I would take a 10-2 Arkansas team over a 1 loss TCU, Boise, etc.

Don't human polls make up 2/3 of the BCS formula? Aren't those human polls almost 100% opinion based?

You speak so adamantly and convincingly of the BCS being a money driven conspiracy that's out to keep the little guy down so the big boys can make money. Now, is it possible? Sure. College athletics has proven to be extremely corrupt over the years. Now, what I want to know, do you speak so confidently about this because you've actually done research, talked to people "in the know" and have firsthand knowledge that the BCS is just one big fraud? Or do you speak so passionately about this because it's a stance you took long ago, with little to no real knowledge, decided some stuff you read online must be true, and are now out to make sure anyone that disagrees with you understands you're right, and we're wrong?

To your first question, yes. Opinions are part of the current system, and I've adamantly said for years that they shouldn't be. Would you believe a car salesman that his car was the best on the road? Doubtful. Why? Because the guy shilling the product is the guy who stands to profit fionancially. How abvout if the dealer agrees with his hired hand? Does that sway you? That's what's going on.

People want to believe that college sports is somehow untainted and not governed by the same duplicitous nature of business that exists in virtually every other aspect of life. It's not. The devils greatest trick is making us believe he doesn't exist. And no, I'm not religious. Just an approipriate axiom.

To your second question, I've been railing against this thing before the BCS was even created. I don't know how old you are, or how into college football history you are. But this is a game that has stunk for years. Nixon 'awarded' the national title to Texas in 1969 despite Penn State being undefeated as well. Maybe it was coincidence that he and several staff members were at the Texas game as guests of the Bush family, prominent Republicans and huge contributors . He had no actual power to award the title, but he offered the plaque to Texas and they took it. I'm not debatinbg whether or not they deserved it; maybe they were the best team. But how the hell does he know? How the hell does that happen?

The BCS was created so the head honchos of the Big 6 conferences could continue to control the process as they had for years, giving them more leeway to exclude teams, and absolute power to decide which teams got the big money games. Creating a "formal" system lulled people into thinking there was actually some impartial regulation or direction of the process. Ask casual fans how the BCS is decided; you'll be surprised to see how many say "computer system". It USED to be, but the computers weren't coming up with the results they preferred. The way teams are ranked has been changed 8 times since the inception of the BCS, and they retain absolute power to tinker with it whenever they want. Doesn't something about that not sound right?

The money aspect is obscene. The executive director of the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl pocketed over $375,000 last year. Sugar Bowl CEO got $600,000. Remember, these are non-profit endeavors, these bowls. They rape their supposed partners...schools, students...by forcing them to buy X amount of tickets at face value, for games that never sell out. The Sugar Bowl in 2007 turned an 11.6 million dollar profit...and accepted a $3 million dollar handout from the state tourism department...just prior to the state announcing a $341 million budget shortfall. But remember, they're non-profit.

It's simple. The NCAA crowns 88 champions in 23 sports. The only champ it doesn't crown is D1 football. Instead, it has delegated the task to mathematically unsound computer formulas and voters who are often ill-informed, and who in many cases have a stake in the system remaining the same.

I'm not Michael Moore. I don't see conspiracies lurking around every corner. I have no particular affinity for Boise, TCU or any school for that matter. But right is right, and wrong is wrong. Leaving money (conservative estimates put a playoff system at 700-800 million dollars) on the table...money that could be put to use to assist the 106 of 120 football playing athletic depts that lost money in 2009...is crazy. And there's the key. The system would rather leave money on the table and continue to feed those who control it, rather than include it's own members it should be helping to support. The rich get richer. A small university in Ft Worth, Texas, is forced to join a conference half a continent away to have any shot at showing they deserve to play with the big boys. Meanwhile, they lose millions on road trips for all those non-revenue sports who now have 1500 mile road trips.

In a year or two, when the anti-trust suit currently under congressional investigation comes to fruition, people will be screaming about the crooked BCS. But when common sense shows you there's a problem, and you refuse to see it because you just know that what the media has been feeding you is true, it's no longer a BCS or media problem. It's a you problem.

I'm old enough to remember the Curt Flood case, and how people laughed and laughed at the notion that players should have some control over where they play and for how much money. They laughed and laughed all the way to the Supreme Court, who said...ummm, duh, of course they should. That broke baseball's anti-trust status. It's happened before, with sports fans heads blissfully buried in the sand. It'll happen again.

I'm against the BCS, but I'm much more against JMT's conspiracy theories and ridiculous ideas of what is 'fair'. He keeps on whining about how everything is unfair towards the little schools and yet when it's shown that it's not actually that way, then he justs conveniently ignores it or tries to twist it into something it's not.

You're full of it. You support the BCS so much that you trust them to select the 8 teams for the playoffs.

You've had tons of opportuniti3es and have brought nothing of substance to the discussion. Don't waste time participating in any discussion about a solution. You're the problem.

I got ya. And yes, the computer rankings are about as absolute as we can get for something like this, but even they aren't perfect. Of course, there isn't any way to get a perfect rankings system for college football whose championship is decide by just one game, and not a series of games like every other professional and collegiate sport.

I used Arkansas' schedule, which IMO is pretty damn tough, but last I heard we only had the 6th toughest schedule in the nation this year. We managed to go 10-2 with that schedule. I don't know Boise's or TCU's SOS, but a team with a schedule that tough, I would take a 10-2 Arkansas team over a 1 loss TCU, Boise, etc.

Well and therein lies the fault of the system for most people. On one side people feel that the cartel conferences have designed it to hold down the little teams. On the other people feel that the little teams don't do enough to be in the discussion. All the while the computer rankings come out and at the end of the day are the absolute deciders.

And I would love a playoff system, 8 teams, add a bowl game and you can still play out in the bowls. But to be honest with you, I am always super excited to see who plays where on Bowl Selection day.

You're full of it. You support the BCS so much that you trust them to select the 8 teams for the playoffs.

Try pulling your head out of your ass sometime. I favor them picking 8 teams for a playoff over just 2 teams. No system is going to be perfect, but an 8-team playoff is better than just 2 teams.

Quote:

You've had tons of opportuniti3es and have brought nothing of substance to the discussion.

Is this a joke? You honestly believe your foolish, ridiculous, and hypocritical conspiracy theories and bullshit is substance? Where is your actual substance? I'm the one using logic and reason, you just continually spout the same conspiracy theories over and over and ignore everything that goes against it. Wow, you're about as delusional as a sports fan can get.

Quote:

Don't waste time participating in any discussion about a solution. You're the problem.

You're the one spouting the same nonsense over and over again, Beavis. I know, I know, anybody that doesn't buy into your foolish and mindless rants is someone that is brainwashed by the 'cartel conferences'.

I know that's more "speculation" but it helps my point. Nevada was ranked #19 because they got to 10-1 with a cupcake schedule. How do they do when they have one three game stretch where they play Alabama, Texas A&M? And Auburn along with another three game stretch where they play at South Carolina, at Mississippi State, and LSU?

uhh... Mississippi St is ranked #22 at 8-4. So yea, if they go 8-4 with that schedule, they are a top 25 team per the writers, coaches and BCS.

I am guessing that schedule belongs to Arkansas which also includes games against Tennessee Tech, Louisiana-Monroe and UTEP so there are 3 wins right there.

Then I guess Nevada could also take out Vandy and Ole Miss this season no sweat bringing them up to 5.

Considering Nevada dropped 52 points on mediocre, middle of the road, big conference team Cal, I am going to take them in the game against mediocre, middle of the road, big conference team Georgia. Now we are at 6.

I'll give them the win vs luckiest team in the world/overrated LSU this year b/c it would be at home. 7.

A&M was using the turnover happy Jerrod Johnson at QB when they would have played so I'll just figure he blows another game with a fumble or two. Now we have 8 and according to the polls putting Miss St at #22, they are a ranked squad.

uhh... Mississippi St is ranked #22 at 8-4. So yea, if they go 8-4 with that schedule, they are a top 25 team per the writers, coaches and BCS.

I am guessing that schedule belongs to Arkansas which also includes games against Tennessee Tech, Louisiana-Monroe and UTEP so there are 3 wins right there.

Then I guess Nevada could also take out Vandy and Ole Miss this season no sweat bringing them up to 5.

Considering Nevada dropped 52 points on mediocre, middle of the road, big conference team Cal, I am going to take them in the game against mediocre, middle of the road, big conference team Georgia. Now we are at 6.

I'll give them the win vs luckiest team in the world/overrated LSU this year b/c it would be at home. 7.

A&M was using the turnover happy Jerrod Johnson at QB when they would have played so I'll just figure he blows another game with a fumble or two. Now we have 8 and according to the polls putting Miss St at #22, they are a ranked squad.

Yes, because Mississippi State went 8-4 with a damn tough schedule. I would have all the respect in the world for Nevada if they played that exact schedule and went 8-4. But I feel fairly confident in saying that they don't have the depth to sustain a few injuries over the course of the season and compete week in and week out in in the SEC with that schedule.

I'm almost positive you can look at every team in the SEC and see they go into every season knowing they have to expect to play 15-17 guys each year on a regular basis on both sides of the ball. I know being Two-deep in the front seven is almost a must (as I'm sure it is in the Big 12, Big 10, etc) and it's gotten to the point where it's very crucial to have 5 or 6 DB's to rotate in every game between the CB and S positions.

I know Arkansas suffered multiple injuries to key guys on both sides of the ball (played without our best receiver for the last 4 games) but you really wouldn't have known it if you had watched them play.

My question is, does Nevada have that type of depth, where they can sustain 1-3 injuries to key players on both sides of the ball, and compete with a physical SEC team? Or even the good Big 12 and Big 10 teams? I'm going to go out on a limb and say NO.